{% include "includes/auth/janrain/signIn_traditional.html" with message='It looks like you are already verified. If you still have trouble signing in, you probably need a new confirmation link email.' %}

Should there be exemptions for police body camera video being made public?

State Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, (second from right), has sponsored a bill that would create a public records exemption to block access to police body camera video without a court order. Access would be limited to police agencies and those in the video. (Madeline Gray/The Palm Beach Post)

One very unfortunate tendency in Tallahassee in recent years is that as soon as meaningful legislation is produced, lawmakers begin crafting exemptions that contradict the purpose and intent of the original. Witness the Senate bill that would hide the very footage shot by police body cameras – yet which passed the Senate on Wednesday.

In that case and myriad others, excessive if not deadly force, caught on cellphones by bystanders, has spurred demands for accountability. One result is the cameras increasingly being worn by police officers. Law enforcement officials have welcomed the devices, not the least because studies of their implementation have shown reductions in the use of police force, and in citizen complaints. Those studies also suggest that members of the public as well as law enforcement officers behave better knowing they may be recorded.

Police officer wearing body camera.

Thus the contradiction in SB 248, sponsored by Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, which would create a public records exemption to block the transparency tool’s product without a court order. Access would be limited to police agencies and those in the video.

“So if an officer comes into your home, comes into your hotel room, your hospital room – places where you expect privacy – that tape is not public record,” Smith said, defending yet another indefensible public records exemption despite the other tools readily available.

Inexplicably, one of SB 248’s criteria for a court decision on whether to release body camera video is whether it would cause harm to the reputation of anyone in the video. It’s an argument any officer might make, including former officer Michael Slager, now charged with murder in the April 4 shooting death of Scott.

Even putting the best construction on Smith’s privacy argument, 20 civil rights groups, including the First Amendment Foundation, the NAACP and the ACLU of Florida, are urging rejection of the bill for failing to balance privacy with police accountability.

Lawmakers obviously have a delicate challenge in balancing citizens’ privacy and public oversight of officers’ actions. But in the light of far too many deplorable recent incidents, the increasingly resounding “What if we didn’t have the video?” question should not be replaced by, “What if they hide the video?”